Category Archives: Political Correctness

My father, Jack, who died around the Thanksgiving holidays six years ago, was a political contrarian. He died just as Donald Trump was starting to become a serious contender for the Republican nomination for the White House; by the end of his life, he had grown so disillusioned with the political class that he might have supported Trump, although we never talked about the possibility of Trump becoming president.

Dad was honest to a fault and, in truth, liked to be a contrarian on most things.If a different side could be found, he would seek it out, understand it, and then make the case for it.(I like to think that I inherited some of his qualities.) He was born on the South Side of Chicago to an Irish Catholic family. And so, when he voted for Richard Nixon over Jack Kennedy in 1960, he was taking the path not commonly taken in his neighborhood.

By 1972, though, he had seen enough of Watergate to vote against Nixons reelection which, in retrospect, was not a very good vote.It was never a good time to vote for George McGovern.

I voted for Trump in 2016, despite being labelled a never-Trumper by Breitbart in the aftermath of the election. I was a never-Cruzer, but never a never-Trumper.Back then, I thought Trump was the best chance we had to blow up the political establishment, strike a blow against political correctness, get the economy moving again, and keep us out of endlessly stupid wars.

I liked much of what Trump did as president and I wasnt bothered by his tweets, which I thought were political theater designed to light the lamestream media on fire.The economy predictably roared, we avoided getting ourselves entangled in more wars, our allies were forced to pay more for their own protection, and we were well on our way to making America great again.

And then COVID-19 hit us, and all that progress disappeared.

Two things have me looking for a new nominee in 2024: how Trump handled COVID-19, and how he handled his loss in the 2020 election.

The biggest single bad decision that Donald Trump made as president was taking two weeks to shut down the economy to slow the curve.Keeping National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases chief Dr. Anthony FauciAnthony FauciOvernight Health Care White House touts vaccine rate for feds The Hill's 12:30 Report: Biden renominates Powell as Fed chair Watch live: White House COVID-19 response team holds news briefing MORE and Dr. Deborah BirxDeborah BirxDocuments reveal new details of Trump political interference in COVID-19 response The Hill's Morning Report - Presented by Facebook - Democrats insist budget consensus close as talks drag on Overnight Health Care Presented by Altria FDA advisers endorse Pfizer vaccine for kids MORE, two long-time government bureaucrats, in place to manage the fallout from that singularly horrible decision, was almost as bad.

Hindsight is 20/20 of course, but I believe President TrumpDonald TrumpRittenhouse says Biden defamed his character when linking him to white supremacists Overnight Health Care White House touts vaccine rate for feds Trump endorses challenger to Hogan ally in Maryland governor's race MOREs inattention to detail, his deference to government bureaucrats, his inability to come up with a federal strategy and his shoot-from-the-hip press strategy all led to his downfall. Instead of investing resources to expand permanent hospital capacity and find life-saving treatments, we have rushed through a vaccine that may or may not work as well as advertised.The divisive mask mandates and vaccine mandates that have flowed from the Biden administration are a direct result of the incompetence of the Trump administration.

Equally bad was Trumps reaction to the 2020 election results. Instead of gracefully handing over power and plotting his comeback, he reacted badly.He relied on the advice of crackpot lawyers who came up with crackpot conspiracies.He inspired common citizens to storm the Capitol, with many of them now rotting in D.C.s harsh prisons. He seemed to purposefully throw two Georgia elections to the Democrats, and now Senate Majority Leader Chuck SchumerChuck SchumerBiden administration to release oil from strategic reserve: reports Senators call for Smithsonian Latino, women's museums to be built on National Mall Voters need to feel the benefit, not just hear the message MORE (D-N.Y.) gets to promote cutting taxes for his rich friends and raising inflation on everybody else.

I am not sure what my dad would have said about Trump, had the Parkinsons disease not taken him away from us six years ago.But I know what I am going to say now: We need some new blood for the next election.Trump did many things right, but what he did wrong means we need a new nominee for the White House in 2024.

John Feehery is a partner at EFB Advocacy and blogs atwww.thefeeherytheory.com. He served as spokesman to former House SpeakerDennis HastertJohn (Dennis) Dennis HastertFeehery: The next Republican wave is coming Feehery: The GOP could have done better Feehery: The theme song of the counterrevolution MORE(R-Ill.), as communications director to former House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas), and as a speechwriter to former House Minority Leader Bob Michel (R-Ill.).

Original post:

Feehery: The honest contrarian | TheHill - The Hill

First thoughts on the new President's Management Agenda

The Biden administration just issued a Presidents Management Agenda (PMA).

Governmentwide attention to management improvement got a real start during the Clinton-Gore administrations reinventing government effort. The theme was improving government performance, a government that works better and costs less as opposed to reducing waste, fraud, and abuse, the management mantra of earlier administrations. Clinton-Gore, based on the Government Performance and Results Act passed at the beginning of that administration, focused on developing performance goals and using them as a management tool for performance improvement.

Contrary to earlier experience where each new administration abandoned the management initiatives of their predecessor and introduced their own flavor du jour, attention to performance miraculously, I am inclined to say -- survived the transition to George W. Bush (the first to use the phrase presidents management agenda) and then to Obama, Trump and now Biden.

The Obama Administration talked about Driving federal performance organized around agenda cross-agency and agency priority goals. The site informs the public on the performance improvement of major Federal agencies to drive progress on goals and objectives: A goal is a simple but powerful way to motivate people and communicate priorities. The Federal Government operates more effectively when agency leaders, at all levels of the organization, starting at the top, set clear measurable goals aligned to achieving better outcomes.

There are many features of the Biden PMA that I like. It includes the emphasis on improving customer service that has been a feature of earlier efforts. I like the endorsement of evidence-based policymaking. I like the fact that, for the first time, the report is signed individually by the members of the Presidents Management Council the organization of deputy secretaries and that they make a commitment to devote personal time to implementing the PMA in their agencies. And I like the plan to set up communities of practice of people at the agencies working on the specific initiatives of the PMA. I also like the recurring discussions of managing across agencies.

However, the Biden PMA is in some ways a departure from past ones and not necessarily for the better. While earlier PMAs were organized around the ideas of performance and results, that theme, though not absent here, is not nearly as central to the Biden PMA. The very first heading of the Bush PMA was Improving Government Performance. The Bush PMA wrote that agencies will be expected to identify high quality outcome measures, accurately monitor the performance of programs, and begin integrating this presentation with associated cost. The Obama Administration adopted priority performance goals for the first time. Trumps PMA called on agencies to deliver mission outcomes, provide excellent service, and effectively steward taxpayer dollars. The Trump Administration PMA was mostly a list of specific performance goals and measures for each. In Bidens PMA, the only discussion of performance goals and metrics appears in one sentence at the end of the document.

The Biden PMA lists three priorities. The first is strengthening and empowering the federal workforce. This is an admirable goal and, as readers of this blog know, I bow to nobody in my admiration for federal public servants. Nonetheless, listing this as the first goal of a management agenda strikes me as putting the cart before the horse. The cart should be performance. The workforce who deserves to be treated with respect and support. But we dont want to land in a situation where government is run for the benefit of employees rather than the public. And there is no call in Biden PMA to the federal workforce, more fully supported, to double down and improve its performance.

This suspicion was deepened when I counted that the word union (or employee representatives) was mentioned five times in the report, one time more often than the word results was. The report writes, Being a model employer also includes evolving our workplaces and work practices to reflect the needs of our workforce today and tomorrow, including by ensuring that Federal employees have a voice in their workplaces through their unions.

I am in no way suggesting that a Democratic administration bash employee unions, but does this deserve such a prominent place in a PMA?

The frequent mention of employee unions raises the other big problem I have with the Biden PMA: Its inclusion of highly controversial and partisan issues. Attitudes toward unions have been a highly controversial issue for decades. By contrast, management reform efforts have survived several administrations most notably George W. Bush, when it could have died because of an association with Clinton, and even Trump, who hardly cared about agency performance by staying rather non-partisan. The performance goals of all administrations except Bush were non-ideological, good-government goals. (Two of Bushs goals, competitive sourcing and, to a lesser extent budget and performance integration -- AKA cutting programs that dont work were more-partisan exceptions, and led to a discontinuity of management improvement efforts between Bush and Obama that were the largest since the 90s.)

A second highly controversial issue in the Biden PMA is equity, a hot-button issue that to many evokes political correctness and a cancel culture. (This is not the association I myself make, but it is a fact of life.) As far as I could see, the word equity or equitable did not appear even once in any earlier PMA. In Bidens it appears 15 times.

When talking about customer service, the report writes that the goal should be to improve the experience of those Government serves especially those communities that have been historically underserved by Government. If the statement had limited itself to expressing the view that in improving management, we should strive to include the voices of historically underrepresented groups, I would not have objected. But the PMA diminishes an uncontroversial, undiluted statement about the importance of customer service by attaching it to it a view about American history to which many would object.

Speaking for myself (and I am a Democrat), I am sympathetic both to working with employee unions and to the call for a more equitable society. But I also recognize that those with different political views may disagree.

We have had a good thing going since the 1990s with management reform efforts in government. Lets not endanger that good thing. Democrats, probably more than many Republicans, care about a government that performs well, because we care about government. The last thing Democrats should want is to make the idea of good government a subject of controversy.

Posted by Steve Kelman on Nov 23, 2021 at 8:59 AM

Read more here:

First thoughts on the new President's Management Agenda - FCW.com

By AUSTIN PRESHKO / TEXAS POLICY FORUM

Eva, dear, did your father teach you anything last night?

My grandmother, Eva Hahn, received this question almost daily at school in the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic. While the question seems innocent enough at first glance, the teachers were actually fishing for proof that my great-grandfather, Jaroslav, was teaching his daughters non-communist ideas, such as the unabridged history of Czechoslovakia.

While my grandmother and her sister never turned their father in, eventually the communists found the proof that they needed against him testimonies of neighbors and former coworkers. Jaroslav heard from friends that a warrant for his arrest was forthcoming, and that the outcome of the trial was already decided guilty, with a sentence of six years in the uranium mines. This was a death sentence, as the average life expectancy in the uranium mines was just under five years. He escaped with his family soon after.

History may not repeat, but we can see patterns. No one is being rounded up and sent off to camps in the United Statesbut government (and social media) are demanding more and more strict adherence to approved ways of thinking.

Already, COVID-19 has justified massive increases in government power and reach. The recent vaccine mandate is a perfect example of this. For government officials at all levels, it was not enough to shut down the country, shatter the economy, wreck educations, and require masks everywhere. Now, the federal government is making an unconstitutional power grab by requiring businesses to force their employees to be vaccinated or consent to daily testing.

The most disturbing part is how it would be enforced: through employee reports. The Biden administration claims this is a good thing OSHA wont be kicking in doors and demanding vaccination papers; instead, it will simply respond to reports from employees. These employees will be protected and rewarded under the False Claims Act, which was designed to protect whistleblowers who reported fraud to the government.

Sound familiar?

While the communists did use secret police, surveillance, and wiretaps to weed out dissidents, they also relied on a vast network citizen-informants. This system encouraged false reportsyou could report a supervisor, competitor, or even just a disliked neighbor with no repercussions. The trials were a foregone conclusionanyone in the system was assumed guilty. There was no justice and no due process.

Were assured no one will go to jail over the vaccine mandate, but it sets a dangerous precedent in the enforcement of regulationsasking Americans to spy and report on each other.

If a company is reported, OSHA can dig into private records to see if the mandate is being enforced. Imagine the potential for abuse there. By nature, a system that relies on reports like this is built entirely on the word of one person against another. Since there is no trial in this situation, there is no risk to the reporter if they issue a false reportthey could submit a report out of spite.

The woke crowd in America already tears people down for the most minor of transgressions against political correctness. Enforcing a mandate with informants is sure to encourage false reports against those who engage in wrongthink.

The Russian author Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who spent almost 10 years in the Soviet gulags, said of the West, There always is this fallacious belief: It would not be the same here; here such things are impossible. Alas, all the evil of the 20th century is possible everywhere on earth.

Fortunately, the vaccine mandate has been temporarily stayed due to the actions of Texas Public Policy Foundations own Center for the American Future. However, this is not permanent and could be undone at any moment. The threat that the vaccine mandate poses towards freedom is enormousit must be stopped.

Editors note: In the above photo, Eva Hahn is in the center. To herleft is Evas mother, Maria Riha, and to right is her grandmother, Maria Zezulkova. This column, used with permission, first appeared Nov. 17 at Texas Public Policy Foundation.

Like Loading...

View original post here:

Austin Preshko: Enforcing mandate with informants will encourage false reports against those who engage in 'wrong think' - Must Read Alaska

British surreal comedy troupe Monty Python are some of the most influential comedians of all time. Up there with the Marx Brothers,The Goon Showand Mel Brooks, the Pythons stream-of-consciousness and surreal style pushed the boundaries of what comedy could and should be, recreating it for the modern age. Without their iconic input, contemporary cinematic comedy would be a barren wasteland.

It is a testament to their legacy that one of the modern eras masters of literature, Neil Gaiman, wrote in 2019: A strange combination of individuals gave us Python. And you needed those people, just in the same way that with the Beatles you had four talented people, but together you had the Beatles. And I think thats so incredibly true when it comes to Python.

The fact thatGaiman, one of our times most influential authors of fiction, had such a strong opinion on Python is reflective of how far-reaching their legacy is. As individuals, theyre ingenious, all adding something different to popular culture, but as a unit, they created a surreal potpourri that railed against the established, and in an ironic way, became part of that very same establishment. As is so often with anything of note, it began as a reaction to the establishment but then became consumed and a part of the thing it was railing against.

Any modern comedian worth their salt has been influenced to some extent by the Python. These include the likes of Trey Parker and Matt Stone, Seth MacFarlane, Weird Al Yankovic, Vic and Bob, Sacha Baron Cohen and countless others. To give more insight yet, the most important comedy series of the last 30 years,The Simpsons, would not have come to fruition without the transformative impact Monty Python had on its creator, Matt Groening.The Simpsonshas explicitly paid tribute to the Python at points over its extensive duration, and Groening has described how he was influenced by the troupes high-velocity sense of the absurd and not stopping to explain yourself.

In aGuardianop-ed in 2019, comedian John Oliver provided a clinical take on the legacy of Monty Python, stating: Writing about the importance of Monty Python is basically pointless. Citing them as an influence is almost redundant. Its assumed. This strange group of wildly talented, appropriately disrespectful, hugely imaginative and massively inspirational idiots changed what comedy could be for their generation and for those that followed.

The motley crew of zany creatives have permeated popular culture to such a great extent that the term Pythonesque is used as a byword for surreal humour, now even included in English dictionaries. Typically Pythonesque, the late Terry Jones revealed his disappointment at being included in the dictionary. In 1998, he said: The fact that Pythonesque is now a word in theOxford English Dictionaryshows the extent to which we failed.

Given that Monty Python has been so transformative on comedy, and influential in a multitude of ways, this has led to a constant reappraisal of their work. Considering we seem to live in the era of revisionism, a transitional period between cultural chapters, this is only natural, particularly given that two surviving Python members have made comments that are highly controversial.

In reflection of their legacy, this has made me question notions such as the relevance of Python in the context of todays culture, asking whether their heritage is being chipped away at by such opinions?

John Cleese, an ardent proponent of black comedy, has criticised political correctness frequently over the past decade. He said: (It is) a sort of indulgence of the most over-sensitive people in your culture, the people who are most easily upset if you have to keep thinking which words you can use and which you cant, then that will stifle creativity.

Cleeseexpanded on this point by saying: The main thing is to realise that words depend on their context PC people simply dont understand this business about context because they tend to be very literal-minded.

Although this is divisive, Cleese does make a point about context, as context is key to everything, an obvious point, but something that often gets drowned out by people on their soapboxes. A traditional comedian, taking the first segment of his account of political correctness as a result of comedy used as a tool to shock, we can understand where Cleese is coming from, even if we dont agree with his very boomer point about oversensitivity. If things were less literal-minded, maybe the most pertinent discussions of our time would actually get somewhere.

However, it was other comments that Cleese made that were less than constructive and had people questioning what his relevance actually is in the modern era. In 2019, he reiterated a point he had made in the past that he felt London was no longer an English city, claiming: Virtually all my friends from abroad have confirmed my observation. So there must be some truth in it I note also that London was the UK city that voted most strongly to remain in the EU.

Drawing the ire of many and those with who we suspect that Cleese is ideologically at odds with even London Mayor Sadiq Khan responded to the comments, stating that they made Cleese look as if he was in character as the misanthropic Basil Fawlty.

Cleese added, I suspect I should apologise for my affection for the Englishness of my upbringing, but in some ways, I found it calmer, more polite, more humorous, less tabloid, and less money-oriented than the one that is replacing it. The apology we can understand, Cleese seemed to be inferring that he does not recognise the country he grew up in, not just because of immigration, but also because of the societal and cultural shift that has happened since then.

Cleese is in his twilight years, and we can imagine that anybody in the same situation would be drowning in nostalgia for the heady days of their childhood. However, given Cleeses past comments and interest in the political party UKIP, this argument only goes so far before falling flat on its face.

Terry Gilliamhas also had a good crack at trying to undermine the importance of his and Monty Pythons artistic legacy. The first of these came in 2009 when he signed a petition in support of film director Roman Polanski after he was arrested in Switzerland for a historical case dating back to 1977 ofdrugging and raping a 13-year-old girl.

With that, another comment was made in 2018 that made a number of Monty Python fans shudder. Regarding the BBCs diversity debate, Gilliam stated: I tell the world now Im a black lesbian.

If the aforementioned anecdotes dont leave a sour taste in the mouths of their most ardent followers, Im not sure what will. Not only is the Polanski petition insane given the evidence, but the comments on diversity are crass and hollow, be it in the name of comedy or not. Gilliam is a white, older man who has benefitted from his position in society, reducing any importance of his comments to cinders. Of course, Id like to offer our condolences to Gilliam, who lamented in 2020 that he was tired, as a white male, of being blamed for everything that is wrong with the world.

Its not just the aforementioned quotes that Gilliam has made either, and his comments dwarf Cleeses in terms of their ridiculous nature. His views on the #MeToo movement have been anything but tactful, labelling it a witch hunt. Discussing the multitude of allegations brought against the convicted rapist Harvey Weinstein, he said: These were ambitious adults There are many victims in Harveys life, and I feel sympathy for them, but then, Hollywood is full of very ambitious people who are adults, and they make choices.

As of late, Gilliam has made headlines by weighing in on the furore surrounding comedian Dave Chappelles new Netflix show The Closer, where he argues that gender is a fact. Urging his fans to watch the show via his social media, Gilliam wrote: To me, hes the greatest standup comedian alive today: incredibly intelligent, socially aware, dangerously provocative, and gut-wrenchingly funny.

So, after a brief discussion of Cleese and Gilliams controversial viewpoints, have they destroyed the legacy of Monty Python? Whilst you could argue that they have ruined it or at least chipped away at it the truth is that they havent. You have to remember, coming back to Gaimans comments, that Python was a unit, and not just Cleese and Gilliam. Terry Jones, Eric Idle, Michael Palin and Graham Chapman also comprised the Python, and the whole was greater than the sum of its parts.

Monty Python has already permeated popular culture in many great ways, and it cannot be undone; just think of the implications of their influence. These days, when John Cleese appears on TV, we might roll our eyes, or if a Terry Gilliam film comes on, we might now begrudgingly change channels, but with regards to Monty Python, to extend Gaimans likening of them toThe Beatles, the legacy of the Liverpool icons wasnt ruined by Paul McCartneysWild Life,and this sentiment should be used when thinking of Monty Python.

Listen to John Cleese in discussion below.

Most popular

See the original post here:

Is the legacy of Monty Python being destroyed? - Far Out Magazine

Americans views on the relationship between civilian leaders and the military are disturbing. When it comes to decisions about the use of force, recent surveys demonstrate that Americans are inclined to disempower civilians and defer to the professional militarys judgment. Nor are Americans much troubled by active-duty, let alone retired, military leaders publicly intervening in policy debates. Moreover, Americans opinions on the subject are driven by their partisan political commitments. When Donald Trump was in the White House, this meant that Democrats were surprisingly deferential to the military, which they hoped would act as a check on this president whom they distrusted and often reviled.

But is the publics lack of commitment to democratic civil-military relations, and its politicized view of the military, a new problem? Or is it just the normal state of affairs, amplified into a crisis by the churn of the news cycle? It is hard to know because scholars and pollsters have not done regular, or even occasional, deep dives with identical questions that allow for direct comparisons. Over 20 years ago, in fall 1998 and spring 1999, the Triangle Institute for Security Studies conducted a comprehensive survey more comprehensive than any before or since of Americans views on civil-military relations. While occasional surveys have been fielded since, including by us, they have asked different questions. As a result, we do not know how Americans views on civil-military relations may have changed over the course of the last two decades. In June 2021, therefore, we fielded a survey, via the Lucid platform, to a representative United States-based sample of 913 respondents that replicated many of the questions asked by the Triangle Institute nearly a quarter-century ago.

The survey results are concerning especially when compared to the older Triangle Institute data. They show that Americans deference to the military has grown over the last two decades, and that members of the U.S. public, particularly Republicans, are increasingly worried about the militarys involvement in politics. This is troubling news for the health of U.S. democracy and American national security.

The Pull of Deference

Americans across the political spectrum express considerably more deference to the military today than they have in the past. In 1998 and 1999, the Triangle Institute survey asked respondents whether they agreed or disagreed with the following statement: In general, high ranking civilian officials rather than high ranking military officers should have the final sayon whether or notto use military force. A majority 53 percent of respondents agreed. This result, among others, suggested that Americans in the late 1990s had not fully grasped the principle of civilian control of the military. But even fewer of our 2021 respondents concur just 43 percent.

Deference to the military has increased among self-identified members of both major political parties: Around 30 percent of both Republicans and Democrats in the late 1990s strongly agreed with the statement that civilians should have the final say on the use of force, but just 15 percent of Republicans and 24 percent of Democrats similarly strongly agree in 2021.

One might have plausibly hypothesized that the Triangle Institute survey represented the high point of deference to the military. In the late 1990s, the U.S. armed forces were still riding high off its unexpectedly easy triumph in the Gulf War. That victory had salved the wounds of Vietnam and seemed to confirm the wisdom of ending the draft and installing the all-volunteer force. A series of generals earned accolades that decade from Stormin Norman Schwarzkopf, whose bluntness and frankness the press found refreshing during the Gulf War, to Colin Powell, whose unflappable professionalism and unimpeachable integrity seemed to epitomize the armys transformation, to Wesley Clark, the Rhodes Scholar who served as the Supreme Allied Commander Europe.

Meanwhile, the leading civilian politicians of the day seemed militarily suspect. Bill Clintons evasion of the Vietnam draft did not help, nor did his decision early on to challenge the military over its discrimination against gay soldiers. Critics derided the U.S. armed forces peacekeeping missions in places like the Balkans which civilians insisted upon, over the professional militarys hesitation and objections as armed social work. The 1990s were marked by numerous instances of civil-military dysfunction in the United States, but, as far as the U.S. public was concerned, the military came up smelling of roses.

One might even have hypothesized that the next two decades should have laid the groundwork for less deference. In the Global War on Terror, the U.S. military was given the mission of pacifying and stabilizing Afghanistan and Iraq and stamping out Islamist extremism around the globe. Civilians granted the armed forces immense resources over $2 trillion in supplemental overseas contingency appropriations and nearly $1 trillion in increases to the Defense Departments base budget as well as substantial autonomy in designing and implementing military operations. But victory proved elusive. Insurgency and terrorism waxed and waned and waxed again amidst the forever wars. Despite the U.S. militarys deep involvement in arming, equipping, and especially training the Iraqi and Afghan militaries, they repeatedly lost on the battlefield to the Islamic State and the Taliban.

Yet deference to the military has risen, despite the U.S. armed forces setbacks in the Global War on Terror. We can only speculate as to the reasons. It may be related partly to Americans generally declining trust in government. The military is the one major national institution that has bucked the steady post-Vietnam fall in trust. Moreover, it seems clear that civilian politicians, more than the professional military, have taken the blame for the failures in Iraq and Afghanistan.

These plausible explanations, however, beg the question: Why has the U.S. military retained Americans trust in the last two decades, and why has it evaded blame for the failures of Afghanistan and Iraq? The answer likely lies in the popular militarism that is a key part of modern American culture. The United States has long granted the military unusual social standing, cast officers as heroes and soldiers as paragons of good citizenship and patriotism, and hailed servicemembers as models for their fellow Americans. Such militarism dates back to the early days of the all-volunteer force, established in 1973, but it reached an even higher peak during the Global War on Terror.

American politicians of both political parties, who have regularly reproduced these rhetorical tropes for decades, bear some responsibility for this militarist myth-making. As a result, discourse and images valorizing the military, including its top officers, have been dominant in the popular sphere from politicians speeches to television to movies. Such militarism is manifest as well in the belief among a very large majority of Americans in soldiers and officers patriotism and competence: over three-quarters of our respondents trust military officers because they put the interests of the country first and because they are good at what they do. Given such veneration of the military, why wouldnt Americans call for their political leaders to suspend their own judgment in favor of that exercised by such exceptionally patriotic, competent heroes?

Politicians militarism helps to insulate the global American footprint from domestic political criticism. But that has come at a cost: rising public deference to the nations senior military officers.

Eroding Faith in a Military Above Politics

But the second major finding of our survey is even more troubling. Its results suggest that the U.S. military is in danger of becoming, in the eyes of the public, a political actor just like any other in Washington.

For the time being, the U.S. publics trust in the armed forces remains secure. In 19981999, 93 percent of Americans said they trusted the military a great deal or only some. Likewise, today, you are hard-pressed to find anyone who distrusts the military. Over 86 percent of our respondents express at least some degree of trust in the armed forces. True, compared to a survey we conducted in 2019, when Trump was still president, Republican trust in the military has waned slightly, and Democratic trust has intensified a bit. But this is par for the course whenever the White House changes hands: Partisans affiliated with the loser of the most recent presidential election express less trust in all institutions of government, including the military, and partisans affiliated with the winner express more. Overall, Republicans and Republican-leaning independents continue to trust the military more, and distrust the military less, than do Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents.

But dig a little deeper, and the U.S. militarys standing as a uniquely apolitical institution comes into doubt. Like the Triangle Institute for Security Studies, we asked respondents whether they agree or disagree with the following statement: Members of the military should be allowed to publicly express their political views just like any other citizen. Two decades ago, a solid majority of respondents (55 percent) strongly agreed. However, in our June 2021 survey, only 28 percent of respondents strongly agree. The drop in agreement is bipartisan, but it is especially strong among Republicans. In the late 1990s, 52 percent of Republicans agreed strongly that members of the military should be able to express their political views. This dropped dramatically, to 23 percent, in our survey. Meanwhile, 59 percent of Democrats in the late 1990s strongly agreed, compared to 35 percent in 2021.

We see similar drops in Republican support for military policy advocacy and criticism of civilian leaders. Two decades ago, the vast majority of Republican respondents (nearly 90 percent) agreed to some extent that it is proper for the military to advocate publicly the military policies it believes are in the best interests of the United States. Just 69 percent of Republicans agree in 2021. Similarly, in the Triangle Institute survey, 60 percent of Republicans agreed to some extent that members of the military should not publicly criticize senior members of the civilian branch of government. In our survey, 72 percent of Republicans agree.

Some of these results might appear, at first glance, to be good news for democratic civil-military relations. After all, it is inconsistent with the principle of civilian supremacy if military officers publicly express their political views just like any other citizen, or advocate publicly the military policies [they] believe are in the best interests of the United States, or publicly criticize senior members of the civilian branch of government. One might infer that the U.S. public has internalized the message of democratic civil-military relations to a greater degree over the last two decades.

We wish. One would expect conservative Americans to be disposed to defer to the military, which epitomizes the values they prize (e.g., discipline, tradition, and order), and political liberals to support tighter civilian control of an institution they, relative to conservatives, tend to distrust. One would further expect political conservatives to be less troubled by the prospect of assertive public military policy advocacy. Indeed, that is what the Triangle Institute for Security Studies found in 19981999, when over 89 percent of Republicans supported public military policy advocacy, versus 77.5 percent of Democrats. While Republican support has plummeted, to 69 percent, Democrats beliefs have remained comparatively stable, holding at 71 percent. Likewise, it seems reasonable to expect Republicans to be less bothered by the prospect of members of the military publicly criticizing senior civilian officials. This was true in 19981999, when over 68 percent of Democrats opposed the prospect of servicemembers criticizing civilians, compared to around 60 percent of Republicans. Today, Democratic opposition has fallen slightly, to below 64 percent, while Republican opposition has grown to 72 percent.

Importantly, these flips in partisan support are not explained by who occupies the White House. Both surveys were conducted when Democrats were in the Oval Office. Republicans could have been expected to welcome public military policy advocacy and criticism, so as to check a Democratic president which is what we wrongly predicted in a scholarly article published last year.

Instead, these peculiar findings appear to reflect what we have elsewhere called the Tucker Carlson effect. Led by Trump, Republican pundits and politicians longstanding veneration of the militarys senior leadership seems to be coming to an end. As president, Trump quickly soured on my generals, whom he had appointed to Cabinet posts, and he reportedly lashed into the top brass as dopes and babies during an infamous meeting in the Pentagons Tank in July 2017. But these tensions largely remained behind closed doors until July 2020, when Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, walked back his misguided June walk with Trump across Washingtons Lafayette Square. It accelerated in June 2021 when, during the ongoing controversy over critical race theory, Milley emerged as a surprising defender of the importance of teaching about systemic racism. In response, Republicans declared the nations top generals woke, attacking the senior leadership for falling prey to, and even inculcating, political correctness.

It seems that compared to fellow Democrats in 19981999 and to contemporary Republicans Democrats today are more confident that senior military officers share their policy preferences and so are happy for the top brass to speak out. If Democrats seem comfortable with senior military officers publicly criticizing civilian politicians, it is presumably because they think that senior officers are their political allies, who will direct their criticism against Republicans. Meanwhile, compared to fellow Republicans of the past and to contemporary Democrats, more Republicans today appear to suspect that senior military officers do not share their policy views and therefore oppose military engagement in policy debates.

Greater apparent U.S. public support for democratic civil-military norms such as senior military officers refraining from intervening in public debates over policy masks Americans growing underlying anxiety about civil-military relations. In the Triangle Institute survey, Americans were nearly equally divided on the question of whether civilian control of the military is absolutely safe and secure in the United States. Today, over 48 percent of Americans disagree with that statement, while just over 37 percent agree. Republicans are especially apprehensive in 2021: just 35 percent think civilian control of the armed forces absolutely safe and secure, while 56 percent have their doubts.

The Stakes

It is distressing that, in 2021, a majority of Americans do not affirm the principle of civilian supremacy over the military. It is even more disquieting that support for this principle has fallen over the last two decades. As scholar Peter Feaver once memorably wrote, in a democracy, civilians have the right to be wrong. Civilians should have the final say over the use of force because they compared to military officers are much more directly accountable to the people. While military officers have a right and responsibility to advise civilian politicians and officials, they have no right to substitute their judgment for that of civilians. The will of civilians must reign supreme. As go civil-military relations, so goes the health of U.S. democracy.

Yet we are equally distressed by the mounting evidence that the U.S. militarys status as a uniquely apolitical and nonpartisan institution is eroding. Politicized denigration of the military is no less problematic than its politicized adoration. This poses risks for decision-making about prospective and ongoing military operations: If one party believes that a woke military leadership too highly values political correctness, might they not be skeptical of those officers expressed professional judgment? It poses risks for recruitment: If one set of partisans currently Republicans, but perhaps Democrats in the future comes to believe that the officers setting military policy are the enemy of right-thinking Americans like them, would they not be hesitant to send their children into that institutions ranks? And it poses risks for the militarys warfighting capability if, as a result, Congress undertakes intrusive investigations into the political leanings of prospective senior officers and applies political litmus tests.

But the dangers are greater still. Democratic civil-military relations, like other elements of liberal democracy, rest as much on informal norms and practices as on formal institutional arrangements and rules. If Americans do not expect the military to remain on the political sidelines, if their attitudes toward the military swing with the political winds, the professional militarys adherence to these norms which so far remains fairly secure at the highest levels among active-duty officers will eventually decay. In a democracy, Samuel Huntington long ago observed (and feared), the military will eventually roughly reflect societys values and mores. If the military is thought of and treated as just one political actor among many in a polarized polity, it will eventually start to act as just one political actor among many in a polarized polity.

We are not envisioning anything as dramatic as active-duty officers openly endorsing political candidates or threatening a coup if a particular candidate takes office. The country remains, thankfully, a long way from such depths. But the death of democracy takes place by a thousand cuts. It comes about through erosion, not explosion. Were the military to tumble far down the slippery slope of politicization, civic-minded Americans on both sides of the political aisle would surely wake up and howl. But they would be too late.

It is not too late now. Restoring the militarys apolitical standing will make significant demands of both the military and civilians. It requires a renewed commitment from the active-duty military, which has, in various ways, subverted democratic control and contributed to public confusion about the militarys role, from openly disparaging presidents to threatening resignation to making public statements on policy to issuing damaging leaks. It requires discipline from retired generals, who have too often traded on their military credentials and embraced an active role in politics and punditry. But, first and foremost, it requires politicians to sail a clear course between military veneration and vilification. The only thing worse than the nation worshipping its most senior military officers is the nation reviling them.

Ronald R. Krebs is professor of political science at the University of Minnesota and editor-in-chief of Security Studies. He is most recently the co-editor, with Thierry Balzacq, of The Oxford Handbook of Grand Strategy.

Robert Ralston is a lecturer in the Department of Political Science and International Studies at the University of Birmingham, United Kingdom, and a non-resident fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. Follow him on Twitter @RobertJRalston.

Image: Defense Department (Photo by Lisa Ferdinando)

Original post:

More Deferential but Also More Political: How Americans' Views of the Military Have Changed Over 20 Years - War on the Rocks

When youre losing the game, summon the commies!

And conservative white America has been losing for quite some timelosing control of the future, that is. The good old days of unabated white supremacy arent coming back; racism can only maintain a public forum, and political relevance, if its wrapped in political correctness. In other words, racism cantopenlybe racism anymore. Thats where Karl Marx comes in.

Excuse me, I mean critical race theory: the enemy, the sower of hatred among children. CRT is an academic concept that almost no one had ever heard of, which has been turned into the scapegoat of the moment.

TheCenter for Renewing America, one of the organizations pushing CRT as the cause of all the racial divisiveness threatening our well-being, sums it up thus:

The threats to our communities, our families, and our faith the pillars that allow us to live out our freedom are vast, real, and increasingly hostile.

Among these threats is a radical philosophy, rooted in Marxism, known as Critical Race Theory. This framework views all of society through a racialized prism of identity groups, with minorities being the oppressed and white people serving as the oppressor. Where Karl Marx separated society into the capitalist bourgeoisie and the oppressed proletariat, adherents of Critical Race Theory have substituted race for Marxs class and economic distinctions.

So there you have it: Be afraid. Be very afraid.

But most importantly, give no thought whatsoever to American history: to our European forebears genocidal theft of a continent; to two and a half centuries of slavery; to our century of Jim Crow laws; to financial red-lining and the creation of the urban ghetto; to the present-day prison industrial complex and police violence, which are aimed primarily at Americans of color; to voter suppression; to the caging of refugee children at our southern border. Either were past all that or its a liberal fairy tale. The real threat to our freedomsincluding the freedom to be ignorantis CRT.

According to the New York Times, the relevance and truth of CRT is a newly emerging national debate, but describing it thus gives way too much credibility to the money-saturated right-wingersincluding theKoch familywho have seized the term strategically, as a convenient rallying cry for their agenda.

I think of the current CRT controversy more as a Ziploc bag: a quick, easy place to stuff American history and get it out of the way, so we dont have to think aboutand therefore atone forthe criminal harm caused by four centuries of structural racism. We can just, you know, keep on keeping on. We dont have to dig deep into the national soul and attempt to change the nation structurally whatever that might mean. That would be adebate.

In any case, theres really only one way to address the right-wing version of CRT: Open the Ziploc bag.

One way to do this is to journey up to Big Rapids, Mich., at least via internet, to a stunning collection of Americanaa.k.a., theJim Crow Museumof Racist Memorabilia, founded by Ferris sociology professor David Pilgrimat Ferris State University.

I am a garbage collector,he says:

racist garbage. For three decades I have collected items that defame and belittle Africans and their American descendants. I have a parlor game, 72 Pictured Party Stunts, from the 1930s. One of the games cards instructs players to, Go through the motions of a colored boy eating watermelon. The card shows a dark black boy, with bulging eyes and blood red lips, eating a watermelon as large as he is. The card offends me, but I collected it and 4,000 similar items that portray blacks as Coons, Toms, Sambos, Mammies, Picaninnies, and other dehumanizing racial caricatures. I collect this garbage because I believe, and know to be true, that items of intolerance can be used to teach tolerance.

The memorabilia on display does not teach hatred, but rather puts it under the microscope of awareness, and what we are able to see is that racism is structural. The museum, for instance, contains a list of pre-Civil Rights-era laws from various states, from the creepy to the utterly absurd.

In Arizona: The marriage of a person of Caucasian blood with a Negro, Mongolian, Malay, or Hindu shall be null and void. In Alabama: It shall be unlawful for a negro and white person to play together or in company with each other at any game of pool or billiards. Alabama: No person or corporation shall require any white female nurse to nurse in wards or rooms in hospitals, either public or private, in which negro men are placed.

On and on and on they go. Racially separate toilet facilitiesof course! Separate windows for purchasing train tickets. Mixed-race cohabitation punishable by up to a years imprisonment.

Pilgrim describes a woman, at the end of a museum tour, staring transfixed at a picture of four naked black children sitting on a riverbank. At the bottom of the picture were these words: Alligator Bait.

And then, beyond the museum, theres what I call the coffee-table book from hell, published 20 years ago:Without Sanctuary, a collection of pictures and souvenir postcards of American lynchings in the first four decades of the 20th century, primarily of Black men, who are sometimes surrounded, as they hang, by white families in their Sunday best, looking on beatifically.

The alleged opponents of the teaching of CRT pretend to maintain that opening the Ziploc bag, mentioning any of the above, and so much more, is itself racism; and whats best for Americawhat the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. called foris a smiley-faced, historically clueless color-blindness that guarantees that nothing much changes. Ibram X. Kendi, writing in theAtlantic, calls this attitude the second assassination of Martin Luther King.

Surprising as it may seem, I also offer empathy to the anti-CRT movement, because its obvious they are terrified of the above history. Thats understandable. But its not going away. Looking directly, and collectively, at the truth must be done not with the intent to cast further blame and create another scapegoat, but to heal the harm and transcend the hatred.

We have a country to rebuild.Robert Koehler ([emailprotected]), syndicated by PeaceVoice, is a Chicago award-winning journalist and editor. He is the author of Courage Grows Strong at the Wound.

Read the original here:

Its American History: Its time to face the truth about what critical race theory actually means to the right - East Bay Express

You there, fellow American! Were you under the impression that Thanksgiving is the uniquely American holiday that celebrates how English settlers and Native Americans peacefully crossed linguistic, cultural and racial barriers to share a meal together and create a model for gratitude and tolerance that would be the envy of the world?

Wrong! says Woke America. Thanksgiving is about murder, plunder and hate. Invite your relatives over to spread love and gravy? No, if you really want to honor the spirit of Thanksgiving, you should whip yourself with barbed wire all day.

In a Nov. 20 MSNBC segment, The Thanksgiving history youve never heard, Gyasi Ross screams at his audience in a tone of voice suggesting an Oberlin sophomore from the Militant Vegans Brigade: The truth is that pilgrims did not bring turkey, sweet potato pie or cranberries to Thanksgiving. They could not. They were broke! They were broken! Their hands were out! They were begging! They brought nothing of value. But they got fed! They got schooled!

Instead of bringing stuffing and biscuits, those settlers brought genocide and violence. That genocide and violence is still on the menu! And state sponsored violence against Native and black Americans is commonplace!

Ross maniac-on-corner-with-bullhorn rant is a dead giveaway. Its an indication that no matter what event or topic may be at hand Kittens! Candy! The comeback of ABBA! the media will screechingly insist on changing the subject back to the Subject, the only subject anyone is ever supposed to talk about, ever.

Dare to feel good about anything in Americas past, present or future and youre clearly a racist.

Two years ago on MSNBC, Joy Reid informed us that Thanksgiving was problematic. A column in The Philadelphia Tribune on Saturday insisted, Celebrating Thanksgiving is celebrating racist genocide. Except its not. Its like saying going to a NASCAR race amounts to celebrating the 35,000 Americans who get killed in car crashes each year.

In 2017, a Bustle piece on how to do Thanksgiving advised its nervous young female readers to acknowledge the national day of mourning, take time to reflect on lives lost and not use culturally appropriative decorations. You also must avoid any crafts or decorations that feed into the Pilgrim myth. So its appropriation to honor my own freaking culture?

Last week, a macaroni-and-cheese recipe in Eater began with a disclaimer: Thanksgiving traces its origins to an uneasy, temporary alliance between 17th-century English settlers and members of the Wampanoag Confederacy. This year, Eater is choosing to acknowledge that history in our coverage of the holiday.

The Washington Post informs us, Just as Native American activists have demanded the removal of Christopher Columbus statues . . . they have long objected to the popular portrayal of Thanksgiving.

See what they did there? They didnt claim Native Americans in general hate Thanksgiving. Native Americans, who frequently refer to themselves as Indians, reject political correctness. (Ninety percent of them werent offended by the Washington Redskins name before it became a generic Football Team.)

No, only Native American activists are angry about Thanksgiving. In other words, the WaPo went searching for Indians who are angry about Thanksgiving and came back with Indians who are angry about Thanksgiving. Activists are protesters, and protesters, by definition, dont like the things they are protesting. The paper was simply informing us that haters hate stuff.

And hating is a proud American tradition, one of the freedoms we enjoy. Say all the mean things you want, no one can lock you up for it!

But why should the rest of us pay any attention to whatever self-induced trauma wokesters are trying to lay on the rest of us? Theyre like the deranged people I see addressing their demons on the 1 train: The rest of us should just stay away.

Sure, its a fearful time, what with The New York Times publishing insane pieces instructing Turkey Day hosts how to install mandatory COVID testing regimes in their homes and Clueless Kathy, the accidental governor of New York, telling people to be masked and stay six feet apart while they pass around the mashed potatoes. Bring your signal flags to the table or warm up for demented screaming.

Hey, Uncle Ernie!

Whaaaat?

Do you like the Raiders or the Cowboys today?

I cant hear you, there are 12 people here and youre 72 feet away!

Nope, thats a nonstarter. Far from nixing Thanksgiving, we should multiply its spirit by 365: We should be grateful every day for being Americans.

Read this article:

Thanksgiving is a holiday dedicated to gratitude and tolerance so the woke have their knives out for it - New York Post

Omri Schein (left), Wendy Maples, Wendy Waddell and Walter Murray in For Whom the Southern Belle Tolls. Photo by Tim Botsko

These days, everyone could use a good laugh, thats for sure.

But not everyone finds the same things funny.

Playwright Christopher Durang is something of an acquired taste. His works are equal parts silly and cynical, smart and snarky, absurdist, campy, over-the-top and fatalistic.

All of the above are on display in his 1994 evening of short plays (somewhat akin to SNL sketch comedy), For Whom the Southern Belle Tolls. The title alone is worth the price of admission.

The five year-old Roustabouts Theatre Co. is always up for a good time and a good think. Prepare for a lot more of the former here.

You dont have to have a literature degree to see these four playlets, each of which features several laugh-out-loud moments. But there is a great deal of name-dropping and plenty of arcane references, literary and otherwise.

As for the title piece, you dont have to have intimate knowledge of Tennessee Williamss classic, The Glass Menagerie, but some familiarity would make it a lot funnier for you.

Third in the lineup, but a good place to start this discussion, its a parody that quotes and twists lines from the original play, and takes lots of liberties, too especially of the gender/sexuality variety.

The dysfunctional Wingfield family has been re-conceived as the Wingvalleys. Domineering Mama, Amanda (pitch-perfect Wendy Waddell) still wants her adult children to grow up and be happy, but mostly, she wants them gone so she can retrieve her long-gone Southern belle ways.

I hate my life, she says a running theme throughout the evening.

She demeans Tom (Walter Murray, slightly flamboyant as the family breadwinner) for his nightly escape to the movies, after which he often brings home a stray sailor.

Instead of Williamss fragile Laura, who collects equally fragile glass animals, we get Lawrence (heartbreaking and comical Omri Schein), who refuses to leave the house because of his limp, asthma and eczema. His mother calls him retarded, and belittles him as a hypochondriac. Terrified of the outside world, he fawns over his collection of cocktail swizzle sticks, which he lovingly, if not imaginatively, gives names (I call this one Blue because its blue).

Tonight, Tom has brought home from the factory a feminine caller (funny Wendy Maples), a tough-looking, loud-talking, hard of hearing but affable gal who turns out to be a lesbian. Lame jokes based on mis-hearing/misunderstanding abound.

(Political Correctness does not make an appearance in these plays; the theater helpfully cautions that some language may be considered offensive/insensitive/triggering. Consider yourself forewarned.)

Family relations go significantly downhill from the various revelations. But the parody, like the performances, is superb (if a tad repetitive, a recurring flaw in the series).

The other long-ish piece is the first, Wandas Visit, about an overly acquiescent wife and an overly passive husband (Waddell and Murray, both excellent), who are in a rut of tedium in their 13-year marriage.

Their adrenaline-shot takes the form of a disruptive and interminable visit from loud-mouthed, aggressive/intrusive Wanda (Maples, loud again, and hilarious), the husbands long-ago high school prom date who descends on them from her miserable, admittedly promiscuous life.

At a dinner out (with agile, clownish Schein in multiple roles), events take an unexpected turn, and the couple returns with renewed vigor to their lackluster life.

Two other despondent characters take center stage in Nina in the Morning and Business Lunch at the Russian Tea Room.

Nina is a Sunset Boulevard-type faded star (Waddell, a narcissist in a glamourous red gown), also confessing to a life of promiscuity and a falling facelift. Her manservant (Maples as stony-faced sadist), who used to be a dentist, wields a hypodermic to anesthetize Ninas hate-filled offspring (both played by Murray). I always like my children best unconscious, Nina confesses.

Schein narrates in a German accent, while also playing Lance, the handsome chauffeur. References to the likes of Simone Signoret and Antoine de Saint-Exupry follow, as the action fades out.

Then theres the one about the playwright named Chris, like his creator, who also spent 12 years in Catholic school (Murray, weak-willed and zhlubby in glasses and cardigan), who just wants to be left alone with his typewriter and his unfolded laundry.

In Business Lunch at the Russian Tea Room, hes forced by his overbearing New York/aggressive agent (blonde-bewigged Schein) into the titular high-class, historic resto, with a Hollywood exec who pitches him the most ludicrous story ideas, finally settling on an Irish priest and an orthodox Rabbi (baptism versus bris, thinks Chris), who fall in love.

Kind of like Sleeping with the Enemy in Seattle, the Hollywood monster explains, while pointedly mentioning her close personal relationships with Philip Roth, Gus van Zant, Nora Ephron, etc.

Hollywoods inanity and insanity are easy targets, especially for a playwright, but this cast (with Schein also playing a surly, borscht-serving waiter) takes aim with precision.

Frankly, this is an actors more than a writers showcase, and skillful director Phil Johnson (Roustabouts co-founder and artistic director) has assembled a stellar ensemble.

The design is fun, too, and more timely pink flocked wallpaper peels down to reveal photos of more easy targets: the CEOs of Google, Amazon and Tesla; Supreme Court Justice Cavanaugh and other hair-raising current name-drops (scenic design by Alyssa Kane). The set changes are cleverly directed, accompanied by pertinent numbers like Tom Lehrers Masochism Tango and Cole Porters Lets Misbehave (sound by Jon Fredette). The costumes (Renetta Lloyd and Roslyn Lehman) are delectable, too.

Its all intended as a post- (we hope) pandemic diversion. So, If this seems like your cup of comedy, mask up and enjoy.

Pat Launer, a member of theAmerican Theatre Critics Association, isa long-time San Diego arts writer and an Emmy Award-winning theater critic. An archive of her previews and reviews can be found atpatlauner.com.

Show comments

Read the original here:

The Roustabouts Go for the Gut (Laugh) in 'For Whom the Southern Belle Tolls' - Times of San Diego

Theres never been more choice about what to watch, from TV shows and documentaries to films and original series.

With the start of a new month, and Christmas just around the corner, the new additions to Netflix in November promise to be binge-worthy.

Each month, Netflix introduces a wide range of new title to the platform.

Here are 10 of the best new shows and films on Netflix this month. In the UK, new shows and films will be available to stream at 8:01am on day of release.

This list is in no particular order.

Big Mouth has been a huge hit on Netflix, and season five is set to drop on bonfire net. Expect fireworks.

Photo: Netflix

Joe Exotic vs Carole Baskin - the biggest personal grudge of century. Wondering what has happened to Joe since his imprisonment? You'll be able to find out on November 17. Tiger King 2 is sure to be wacky and bizarre as ever.

Photo: Netflix

The fifth season of popular animation F is For Family see comedian Bill Burr and Emmy award-winner Michael Price, transport back to the 1970s, a time when political correctness, helicopter parenting and indoor smoking bans werent part of the character's vocabulary.

Photo: Netflix

Sure to be another Netflix hit, Hellbound is a story about otherworldly beings who appear out of nowhere to issue a decree and condemn individuals to hell.

Photo: Jung Jaegu | Netflix

Read more:

10 of the best new release Netflix series available coming in November - The Scotsman

Universally Accepted

To the Editor:

In his recent review of Amor Towless wonderful The Lincoln Highway (Nov. 7), Chris Bachelder says, The book lacks a prominent female traveler and readers might wish

If readers wish that, they should read a different book. In high school English class, most of us were introduced to the concept of universality, which holds that the job of an author is to create characters with whom all readers, regardless of race and gender, can identify.

As a woman, I am far more concerned about the treatment of women and minorities in decisions about which books should be published and reviewed than I am about their inclusion in books where they really dont belong. I cant count the novels written by men that Ive read where I felt that had they been written by women, we wouldnt even be hearing about them.

It is depressing to realize that the creative process and literary criticism are now falling victim to political correctness.

Lupi Robinson North Haven, Conn.

To the Editor:

John Plotzs review of Fiona Sampsons Two-Way Mirror (Oct. 31) praises how the book, a biography of Elizabeth Barrett Browning, pushes back against the neglect, bordering on amnesia, that has descended on a poet once widely celebrated.

Explore the New York Times Book Review

Want to keep up with the latest and greatest in books? This is a good place to start.

On the contrary, a Barrett Browning revival has flourished in academia for several decades. In the 1990s, in the respected Dictionary of Literary Biography series, Beverly Taylor devoted almost 30 pages to her. In 1995, Angela Leighton and Margaret Reynolds published their anthology of Victorian Women Poets, whose 66 pages of Barrett Brownings poetry pretty much demand a place in relevant course syllabuses. Also in the 90s, publishers of the good old Norton anthologies put out a critical edition of her long but brilliant Aurora Leigh.

Plotzs hope that Two-Way Mirror will inspire a new generation of readers neglects the past 25 years, during which students of Victorian poetry would have needed an especially stubborn amnesia to avoid the possibility of finding inspiration in Barrett Brownings poetry.

Kathleen McCormackWayne, Pa.

To the Editor:

In his review of Evan Osnoss Wildland (Nov. 7), Angus Deaton describes Greenwich, Conn., and its transition from the Greenwich of Prescott and George H. W. Bush to one that largely favors Trump.

The data reflect no such transition, however. After supporting Republican presidential nominees in 11 of the 12 previous presidential elections, including Mitt Romney in 2012, Greenwich voters preferred the Democrats Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Joe Biden in 2020 over Trump, each time by a decisive margin. Similarly, Greenwichs Republican voters showed less enthusiasm for Trump than other Connecticut Republicans in 2016; while Trump won the statewide G.O.P. primary with over 58 percent of the vote, a majority of Greenwich Republicans cast ballots for other Republican presidential candidates.

Brice H. PeyreNew York

To the Editor:

Each Sunday, the first section I reach for is the Book Review. And on most Sundays I squirm in frustration with more than half of the fiction reviews because they are littered with detailed plot descriptions. As this is a consistent practice, I must conclude that it is an editorial decision coupled with sheer laziness on the part of many reviewers.

What happened to sticking with a books theme, style, context and quality (in the reviewers mind)? A primary joy in reading fiction is to turn a page not knowing whats going to happen next. Why spoil that?

Pete WarshawChapel Hill, N.C.

To the Editor:

I have often decided to read books based on reviews in the Book Review, but never before because of a single sentence.

I was inclined to skip Steven Pinkers 400-page Rationality, having long ago read Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, until one line in Anthony Gottliebs review (Oct. 31) changed my mind: His deployment of perhaps the finest of Jewish sex jokes as a tool to explain the concept of confounding variables may deserve some sort of prize.

I have ordered the book.

Steven LubetChicago

Originally posted here:

Book Spoilers, Sex Jokes and Other Letters to the Editor - The New York Times